Having seen the numerous postings recently concerning UAF and its proposed
switch from affiliate status in the CCHA to full status in the WCHA, I sort
of felt it necessary to post a few comments and a few questions.
 
1) While it is true that the addition of UAF as a full member of the CCHA
   would strengthen the conference, it creates a scheduling nightmare.  As it
   is, each CCHA school plays everybody else 3 times (down from 4 a few
   years ago) which means a 2-1 split.  Travelling to Alaska to play only
   one game would be a waste.  If the CCHA adopts the scheduling format that
   the WCHA has this year (where you play 2 teams either twice on the road
   or twice at home only) that would alleviate some of the problem, but it
   certainly isn't a hop, skip, and a jump from Fairbanks to Kent or Oxford
   (I know, it's only a little farther than Marquette, and what's a few miles
   between friends).  That would also mean 40 conference games.  Getting down
   to a reasonable number would require playing half the conference four times
   and half the conference twice, which would essentially mean two divisions.
   In the CCHA, there really isn't a good dividing line that would keep the
   two divisions equal (at least not at the moment).
 
2)  Adding UAF to the WCHA would be more plausible, but you are going to run
    into two problems: a) where are you going to get a twelfth; and b) what
    about UAA?  Recent postings have stated that both N. Dakota St. and Man-
    kato St. would have problems fielding (or should that be icing? :-)) a
    DivI program.  Taking Lake Superior St. from the CCHA would get you to
    12, but it also creates a huge hole in the CCHA in terms of the compet-
    ititveness of the conference (no offense intended to the UIC, Kent, ND,
    and Ohio St. fans).
    The presence of UAA in the WCHA is itself a two-fold problem.  How do you
    draw up a schedule that doesn't force someone in the lower 48 to make two
    trips to Alaska each year, and also force both UAA and UAF to put up a
    ton of frequent-flier miles?  Even with a proposed split into 3 divisions
    (as has been posted within the past 2 months), somebody (probably Denver
    and CC) are going to have to go to Alaska twice.  And it isn't a hop, skip,
    and a jump from Fairbanks to Denver, either.  Secondly, as a recent posting
    from our 49th state suggests, there is really no love lost between UAA and
    UAF.  Would UAA fight the addition of UAF to the WCHA?  Just some points
    to ponder.
 
3)  Walt Olson's suggestion of adding UAF as well as the five CCHA schools in
    Michigan is interesting, but probably impractical.  Unless the WCHA plans
    to drop somebody (which I seriously doubt) that creates a 16 team con-
    ference.  Talk about scheduling!  At most you could play each team twice,
    and that gets you to 30 conference games.  Cutting big rivals, such as
    Michigan-Michigan St., Minnesota-Wisconsin, and N. Michigan-Michigan Tech,
    down to playing each other only twice a year?
 
What is the final solution?  Who knows?  As it is, though, I think it is unjust
to have UAF as an affiliate member of the CCHA.  Either they should be a full
member or in a different conference.  While addition to the WCHA would still
present problems, I think that it is a better temporary solution than what is
out there right now.  Hopefully, college hockey will pick up on the West Coast
to allow for the formation of a fifth conference with both Alaska schools as
members.  If the WCHA is serious about adding UAF and a twelfth school, it is
my belief that they should look at adding Air Force.  While Air Force's program
is not the same as, say, a Northern Michigan, their presence in a conference
should allow them to improve much faster than as an independent (e.g. the
imporvement in Notre Dame's program in just two years in the CCHA).
 
G. M. Finniss
Michigan State University
WVU '87, UTenn '92, MSU who the hell knows when?
 
P. S.  Before somebody writes to correct my grammar, I know, it's somebody IS,
       not somebody ARE.
P. P. S.  Classes were cancelled at Michigan State for the first time since
          1976 today.  The temp. here last night was -20 with a -50 wind chill.
          The president of the university had 30 protestors on his lawn last
          night complaining that it was too cold to go to class today (the
          chant was "Hell No, It's 40 Below").  It seems that the protestors
          were out there for 40 minutes before Pres. McPherson went out to
          talk to them.  Too bad it only takes about 20 minutes to walk from
          one end of MSU's campus to the other (unless you count the Ag farms).
          Talk about symbolism over substance, geesh!